What is your experiences in the black churches.. You have yet answered this question.
Gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right? So no cultural perception changes occurred among white males between the 1890s and the 1960s which maybe had something to do with the whole civil rights movement? You get that Jim Crow laws were created right after slavery was abolished, right? But there was a large amount of time between that and the civil rights movement. What changed? Opinions about racism among white men changed. Not all of them. Not everywhere. But enough so that when White America saw and read about the things going on in the South instead of thinking it's someone else's problem, they stood up and condemned those things. That didn't happen a century earlier.
There was a "high road" taken. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. If it had not happened, we would still have slavery. I'm not sure why you don't get this. Do you think that ethnic minorities "forced" the white majority to change their laws, but not their opinions? That just seems incredibly narrow minded to me.
Well, we have to agree to disagree. I don't consider being FORCED to do something as a high road. You're severely underestimating the woman and ethnic population of the country..... not surprising though...
Gbaji wrote:
There was a "high road" taken. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. If it had not happened, we would still have slavery. I'm not sure why you don't get this. Do you think that ethnic minorities "forced" the white majority to change their laws, but not their opinions? That just seems incredibly narrow minded to me.
No, I believe the 14% black population with the overlapping
50% woman population along with the percentage of white men who weren't D-bags forced the white men in charge of making laws to change their laws. Minds and hearts did not change, hence once again, Jim Crow laws.
Gbaji wrote:
And yet, despite this, white men who had all the power they needed to continue to oppress minorities via a rigged legal system, over time choose consistently to eliminate those unfair things their own ancestors put in place. If they had chosen to only care about themselves and their own ethnic group, this would not have happened. That's the "high road" I'm talking about. You say that the world can't be like that, yet the very "cause" you argue for requires that it has happened in the past, and will continue to happen in the future.
WTF are you talking about? Again, it wasn't the racist white men who made these changes. It was everyone else who FORCED these changes. I hate history and I know this, surely you must know this. If those civil right pioneers and organizations such as NAACP, which originated with white people, didn't exist, I assure you, today would be very different. For you to believe this nonsense that the racist white men "learned the error in their ways" is beyond ridiculous when there still exists the Klan, racial profiling, etc.
So, you need to get off your high horse in the belief that racist white men is the cause of this change and give the necessary credit to the civil right activists who really made these changes. This is a world wide concept.
Gbaji wrote:
And yet, for some reason, it did. Or, I should say, that white males did it. The question I'm proposing to you is this: If black males were to find themselves in the same position of power tomorrow, do you think they would similarly choose to give up that advantage in the name of equality? To me, based on the rhetoric I hear coming from black political leaders, I don't hold high hopes for this.
Do you? If so, why? You insist that it's normal for groups not to do this, but seem to also insist that this isn't something for anyone else to be concerned about. Which is it?
Read above.. Your talk is insulting. Civil right activists (white, black, male, female) forced theses changes, not racist and sexist white men.
Life doesn't work that way. No random country is going to give us goods over their own country unless there's something in it for them. Period. You can say what you want, but that's reality.
Gbaji wrote:
You didn't say "friends and family". You said ethnic minorities. Don't change the language after the fact, please. And yes, there is a pretty significant correlation between the ideology of someone choosing to help out those of their own ethnicity ahead of others, and the same ideology which justified slavery. At the end of the day, you're choosing to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. It's not about the degree, it's about the criteria being used to discriminate.
[.....]
That's not what you said. You're playing word games again. You didn't say "take care of yourself". You said "take care of those who are of the same ethnicity as yourself". Those are not the same thing.
How about "treat everyone the same regardless of their skin color"? Isn't that a much better alternative? I think so.
That's why I clarified to you and said that I wasn't going to sugarcoat it to you. You're under this misconception of racism. Your family IS your race. Your friends are more than likely your race as well. Taking care of the people in your community who are taking care of you is taking care of yourself.
Gbaji wrote:
Missing the point completely. If Obama hadn't attended that particular church, none of us would have known about it. How many churches are there? How many elected politicians? So how many more churches preach the same message but didn't happen to have a major political figure attending them? And it's not just about churches. You're fixated on the details and missing the bigger picture. I've seen the same opinions expressed by professors and politicians (although the politicians are more careful to moderate their language) as well.
I'm not missing the point, you just took a detour. You stated that black churches are like Reverend Wright.
I responded that no, Reverend Wright is extreme and that's the only reason why he was in the media in the first place.
You countered to say, "no, it's because President Obama went there".
I countered to say, "no, it's because Rev. Wright is a nut case". The fact that President Obama went there, opened the doors for the spot light, but the simple fact that he was a nut case, put him on the spot light.
Gbaji wrote:
But I don't go to that particular store because it's a "white store", whatever that means. I don't watch shows because they are "white shows". And I don't listen to music because it's by "white artists". I listen to music I like, and go to stores that have what I need to buy, and watch shows that have plots and characters that I enjoy watching. I don't take into account the skin color of the people involved with those things.
Exactly, and it just so happens that they are all supported by white people. That's just part of life. It isn't race driven. So, if everything that is stereotypically enjoyed by race x isn't supported by race x, then those things will go away. It's really just that simple.
That's like opening a store that sells turbans and middle eastern clothing in an area with no middle eastern population. Do you honestly think that business will stay open? Now move that store to a community with a high middle eastern population, do you think business will change?
What if you're in the fist scenario and you're the only person buying from that store, are you telling me that you wouldn't be concerned that it might close down?
It's the same concept. I'm just not sugar coating anything.... I label music primarily made by white people as "white music" and music primarily made by black people as "black music". There is no such thing as either, but only for simplicity of discussion, because at the end of the day, it is what it is.
Gbaji wrote:
Then perhaps they shouldn't be trying to pursue only a black audience or customer base? Has this occurred to you that what you are calling "helping other minorities" (presumably meaning their own minority group) is a self caused segregation?
Read above... It's called doing business. Until white people start selling things like turbans and du-rags, it's an open market left void. Someone has to sell it. Ironically, that's a market that the Koreans have taken up as an example. It isn't minorities creating the segregation, it's the white majority by not including the minority in their sells.
Gbaji wrote:
What point are you making here? If a film is specifically made to appeal to one ethnically defined audience, then that's a choice made by the makers of the film. I'm not racist for *not* choosing to see it, or even not being interested in it. I'd suggest that the makers of the film might be being a bit narrow in their presentation, but that's their choice. I didn't make them do that. There's nothing preventing a black producer or director or actors from making or staring in films that aren't aimed just at a black audience. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.
You're proving my point exactly. According to you, there shouldn't be black or white, just be. Yet, you consider a movie with a full black cast as a movie specifically made to appeal to one ethnicity. Did you ever consider that the director just filmed a movie where the cast just so happened to be black? In either case, it doesn't matter. The outcome will still be the same, white people will probably not go to see it.
I'm not sure why you keep throwing "racism" around.. No one is claiming that. I've already explained to you how you don't know the definition of the word. Racism is the belief that one race is inferior or superior to another race. So, just because you made a preference of something, doesn't make you racist. So, please stop making this accusation.
Gbaji wrote:
Wow. Just wow. How about not insisting on creating something different, then labeling it "black X", and then complaining when only a narrow segment of society are interested in those things?
If we want to get out of this cycle, we should stop deliberately inserting race into things which shouldn't naturally care about them. Clothes aren't "black". Music isn't "black". Shops aren't "black". They only become labeled as such when people decide to create some kind of difference and then associate a race to that difference. It's completely artificial. How about we not do that? Why not just have music, and clothes, and barber shops, and not label them?
Wouldn't that be different?
Again, when the white population embraces these things, then there wouldn't be a need for the segregation. You, my friend, are severely confused.
You don't even understand the concept of something being "black" and yet you expect me to believe that you're able to provide or meet the needs of black people?
So, you are against men and women's shampoo, soap, cologne, perfume, etc.? Really? I mean, there is absolutely no need for the segregation other than the stereotypical wants, needs and desires. It's the same concept.
Gbaji wrote:
Wow. I keep thinking at some point you'll realize that your own position is that one that is racist, but maybe that's too much to ask for.
First off. Racism isn't just about superiority, although that's often a component of racism. Racism is expressed by the act of treating people differently based on their race. Period.
FALSE You're making up definitions to words to suit your argument. There's a reason why the words such as prejudice, stereotypical, biased, etc. exist. It is possible to be prejudice and not racist.
Gbaji wrote:
Period. It doesn't really matter why you're doing it. And let me point out that it's not white people who label things "black clothes", or "black films", or "black shops". Black people self label and self segregate themselves in this way. I happen to think it's incredibly unhealthy from a socio-cultural point of view, but this behavior is often labeled as an expression of "back pride" and defended on the basis of some kind of civil rights.
o.O? Really man.. It's labeled by society for who ever participates in it. Ever heard the terms "chick-flick" or "Asian food"? Asians typically don't call their own food "Asian Food" unless they are making some sort of comparison to "European food" or "American Food". All of these types of food are simply labeled food in their respective areas.
Gbaji wrote:
Secondly, I'll point out that you have again changed the words you used. You didn't say "friends and family". You said minorities should support minorities (with the implication that its ok to limit this to your own ethnic minority group). That's a completely different thing. You originally were saying that it's perfectly ok for a black person to choose to help a complete stranger who is black but to not do the same for a complete stranger who is white. You have further justified this by some convoluted thinking that white America somehow owes this to everyone else, so everyone else is justified to use racist methods to benefit themselves at white America's expense.
Are we even reading the same forum? WTF are you talking about? You are so way off base it's ridiculous.
1. I've already stated that your family is your race and that your friends are more than likely of the same race. So, while there is a possibility that they are not the same, the probability is low enough that for simplicity is easier to say minorities.
2. No where did I imply that it was some what wrong to want to do business with a white stranger, but it's more beneficial to do business with people that are going to bring their success back into your community and family, which according to #1 above, is more than likely the people of your own race.
If you want to see more movies like "Colored Girls", you have to support it and other like movies to create a market for it. Going out to see Harry Potter will not give revenue to the film team of "Colored Girls". It's the same concept.
You're making this subject overly sensitive, when it doesn't have to be.
[quote=Gbaji]I get this. I really do. In fact, it's exactly the mentality I was talking about from the beginning. I'm well aware that the very idea you are putting forth exists strongly among many minority groups. My original statement was that this is dangerous and harmful in the long run because once those minority groups gain political power, they will not likely change those racist ways. They will instead continue to punish white America for its past sins long after the scales have tipped the other way. [/quote] You obviously don't get it. Besides the obvious wrong statements that you have made, if you did understand it, you'll realize that not doing it is dangerous and harmful.
Your last sentence translates this to me
"Keep the Black man down because if he gets power, then they'll take their revenge on the White man". And... you wonder why I wouldn't listen to you.. are you even listening to yourself? You're supporting my argument.. This isn't about equality, you're paranoid of not being in total power. Else, your statement should have read "We need to assist in the gain of power with all minorities to make up for lost time".
[quote=Gbaji]You're really just illustrating my point. The assumption that racism is acceptable when committed by a group labeled as a minority is very strong. My point is that this is still racism, and we ought to be fighting against that just as hard as we fought against it when Jim Crow laws were in effect. If one is wrong, then so is the other. You are just blinded to this because you've presumably been taught about racism from the lens of current political power and not in an abstract sense. I happen to think that's incredibly short sighted though.
Racism is racism and is wrong no matter who's doing it or why. [/quote] I totally agree, except I'm not talking about racism. You just fail to understand the term.
[quote=Gbaji]
The very fact that you think this list is important shows how warped your viewpoint on this subject is. Perhaps if more people like you stepped out of the racially segregated assumptions they have put around them, they'd see that the rest of the world isn't about "all black" or "all white" everything. It's incredibly telling (and funny as hell) that you think that I'm somehow racist if I *don't* watch BET, or read JET, but don't see the racism inherent in that very assumption.
Wow. Just wow... [/quote] Read above.. WTF did you see anything about racism? I asked a simple question. This is evident that you're just paranoid above belief.. This has nothing to do with racism, but the simple fact that if the average white person isn't involved with this stuff, who's going to provide these things?
You keep claiming that minorities shouldn't support each other, yet you probably don't even know half the stuff on that list. So, why do you expect for the black population to sit there and wait for the white population (who is probably ignorant on many of these things) to create these markets? Especially, if they can get in the market themselves.
I think your problem is that you've lived in a bubble and don't realize what's going on. Maybe you should go out and ask people questions in an unbiased way. Maybe a face to face will get you to understand better.